Quit picking on Obama……

[SirJosephPorter]

Ironsides, in the hindsight, Bush was wrong to let Lehman Brothers go bankrupt (that is what I have read). It played very well on the main street. Average person could see the greedy bankers get it in the neck and was cheering about it. Unfortunately, it has caused havoc with the Wall Street.

It completely froze up the credit. While until then we were looking at normal, run of the mill recession, now we were looking at a depression. Then Bush had to act. However, if he had spent 10 or 20 billion $ bailing out Lehman Brothers, the subsequent stimulus package of 700 billion $ plus may well have been unnecessary.

Unfortunately, there was no political capital to be had by bailing out Lehman Brothers. The move would have been universally condemned; Bush and his supporters would have become the laughing stock of USA. And Bush could hardly make the argument that as a result of his bailing out Lehman Brothers, he saved the government 740 billion $ in stimulus package. Who would have believed him?

So I can see why Bush let Lehman Brothers go belly up. Nevertheless, in hindsight that was a very wrong move, and that is probably what necessitated the two stimulus package, one by Bush and one by Obama.

 

[Kreskin]

I am not sure the average person would have noticed anything. The economy has fallen apart, would have anyway. If any fixing is actually happening, it is the American people who are fixing the problem, not the goverment. As usual the goverment try's to take credits for the positives and blames the negative on others. This money stimulus package what ever they call it comes directly from the people. The goverment is broke and is trying to dip into the individuals funds now. Social Security never had a reserve of funds, the goverment just paid what ever was needed every month to cover all expenses. In answer to your question, I think the private sector would have gotten us out of this recession faster and more efficiently than what is going on now. I am not saying everything would be all fixed now, but further along than it is now.

At this moment in time, what specifically has Obama impacted negatively in the economy? How would not pouring money into the economy benefit Joe The Plumber? How would AIG going down create employment? How would a collapsed banking system create more private sector investment?

Ironically, in the fall of 2008 we had a sound small business in our town go down because their franchise inventory was funded by a US bank that simply stopped providing credit to even healthy businesses. How does that kind of problem left to fix itself make things better?

You may have problems deferred to the future but the situation looks a helluva lot better at this moment than it did, and who knows how much unemployment there would be if it all had gone down. It's like blaming the guy for not stopping all of the asteroid that was headed for the planet.

 

[TenPenny]

Ironsides, in the hindsight, Bush was wrong to let Lehman Brothers go bankrupt (that is what I have read). It played very well on the main street. Average person could see the greedy bankers get it in the neck and was cheering about it. Unfortunately, it has caused havoc with the Wall Street.

If any of them had listened to what's-her-name about the need to report and understand all of the bizarre financial instruments, they would have been able to gradually crack down on the insanity, instead of discovering too late how risky it all was.

Essentially, it boils down to the fact that all of wall st started to rely on mathematical models that they assumed described risk very simply, and were completely hung out to dry when they discovered that it didn't work.

 

[Kreskin]

Isn't she married to whats=his-face?

 

[darkbeaver]

I would like to see a mathmaticly modeled apple and orange. Would we still need trees?

 

[TenPenny]

Isn't she married to whats=his-face?

...Brooksley Born, who during the Clinton administration lost her struggle to regulate derivatives...

That's the name I couldn't remember.

 

[gopher]

''talk there of armed revolution ... Brown shirts''

Precisely. Lip service is all they pay to the Constitution. The Patriot act should be applied to them in order to give them a taste of their own medicine.

 

[ironsides]

At this moment in time, what specifically has Obama impacted negatively in the economy? How would not pouring money into the economy benefit Joe The Plumber? How would AIG going down create employment? How would a collapsed banking system create more private sector investment?

Ironically, in the fall of 2008 we had a sound small business in our town go down because their franchise inventory was funded by a US bank that simply stopped providing credit to even healthy businesses. How does that kind of problem left to fix itself make things better?

You may have problems deferred to the future but the situation looks a helluva lot better at this moment than it did, and who knows how much unemployment there would be if it all had gone down. It's like blaming the guy for not stopping all of the asteroid that was headed for the planet.

"At this moment in time, what specifically has Obama impacted negatively in the economy? Osama's stimulus packages have more than tripled the deficit right off the bat, driving the economy down to its lowest point in history creating even more of a job loss. Any recovery from that point till now is due totally to the private sector. There has been very little or no goverment jobs opening up for the unemployed. (not even repairing Fed highways)

How would not pouring money into the economy benefit Joe The Plumber? Joe the Plumber (self employed) has not seen one penny of that stimulus money.

How would AIG going down create employment? AIG was/is a holding company except for the employees working directly for it I don't know what effect its collapse had on companies it held.

How would a collapsed banking system create more private sector investment?
The banking system would not have collapsed if left alone. It would have recovered on its own thru bigger banks swallowing up smaller ones. credit would have become tight as it is now, try getting a small business loan today, almost impossible. Right now all the banks have done, is take our stimulus money, paid their executives and now have the gall to create outlandish conditions and interest rates if we want to borrow it back from them. It is our money that we loaned them so they supposedly would not fail. I am referring to loaning money to people/small business's that are not a risk.

 

[TenPenny]

How would not pouring money into the economy benefit Joe The Plumber? Joe the Plumber (self employed) has not seen one penny of that stimulus money.

That's complete bull****.

I frequent some forums that are heavily populated by professional contractors and sub-contractors, and many of them are working because of stimulus money, and while many of them don't like Obama, they at least admit that this is a short term shot in the arm.

 

[JLM]

That's complete bull****.

I frequent some forums that are heavily populated by professional contractors and sub-contractors, and many of them are working because of stimulus money, and while many of them don't like Obama, they at least admit that this is a short term shot in the arm.

Yep, I think that anyone who bad mouths Obama should at least have a better solution.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yep, I think that anyone who bad mouths Obama should at least have a better solution.

Not necessarily, JLM. Republicans can run in 2010 simply by trashing Obama and Democrats, they don’t have to advance any solutions (much as Democrats did not advance any solutions in 2006).

But Republicans do have a problem in 2012, that is when they will have to put forth concrete proposals; they will have to articulate a vision for the country. And people may not like what they articulate.

For instance, do they still stick with doctrinaire tax cuts? That will shoot the deficit even higher. Or do they go for balancing the budget? That will nix any tax cuts, may even call for tax increases.

In 2010, the hatred of Democrats, hatred of Obama will be enough to unite them. In 2012, the different factions in the party will strongly disagree with each other, conservatives will be at the throats of the moderates, traditional conservatives (who want balanced budget) will be at the throats of the Neocons (who want tax cuts at any cost) and so on.

If Republicans do not win control of Senate and House in 2010, I think it is highly unlikely that they will do so in 2012. If anything, they may even lose seats in 2012, if economy is in a decent shape and if Obama wins reelection.

If they cannot win control of Senate and Hose in 2010, they will have to wait until 2014 (when they will almost certainly win control of the Senate and the House).

 

[Walter]

Yep, I think that anyone who bad mouths Obama should at least have a better solution.

A better soulution is tax cuts, a la Reagan and then the economy will recover very quickly as it did in the 80's. Screw Obama.(a la H. Simpson)

 

[JLM]

A better soulution is tax cuts, a la Reagan and then the economy will recover very quickly as it did in the 80's. Screw Obama.(a la H. Simpson)

You may want to check that out with our "in house" political expert first, to make sure it will fly................;-);-)

 

[Kreskin]

Tax cuts? The old never never plan.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You may want to check that out with our "in house" political expert first, to make sure it will fly................;-);-)

Tax cuts will blow the deficits sky high, much higher than they are today, like they did in the days of Bush.

Bush started with a surplus of 100 billion $ (thanks to Clinton) and shortly converted that into a deficit of 500 billion $, partly thanks to the tax cuts (mostly benefiting the rich).

So if say, Joan of Arc starts with a deficit of 1 trillion dollars, imagine how much higher deficit will climb when she is done with the tax cuts.

In spite of the tax cuts, the average middle class did not prosper under Bush, they lost ground. Middle class was actually worse off after eight years of Bush (even upper middle class and the rich were worse off, the stock market put in the worst performance on record in 200 years). They prospered mightily under Clinton, who raised taxes.

Conservatives think tax cuts is the panacea for everything (wouldn’t surprise me if they think that the best way to fight Al Qaeda is tax cuts), but past performance does not support that.

If Joan of Arc comes to power and enacts huge tax cuts, it is quite possible that USA may really go bankrupt under her watch (as it practically did under Bush watch).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Tax cuts? The old never never plan.

Quite so, Kreskin, tax cuts is like having a party or going on vacation with borrowed money (like Reagan and Bush did). It sounds good in the short term; everybody has more money in their pocket. Sure it will blow the deficit sky high, but our children or grandchildren will have to worry about the debt, we can spend the money and enjoy ourselves.

And tax cuts sometimes are actually counterproductive. Bush tax cuts put more money in peoples’ pickets temporarily. But they lost all that due to the economic meltdown and the horrible stock market performance.

 

[ironsides]

That's complete bull****.

I frequent some forums that are heavily populated by professional contractors and sub-contractors, and many of them are working because of stimulus money, and while many of them don't like Obama, they at least admit that this is a short term shot in the arm.

Wonder where they are, sure not in Florida or NYC.

 

[ironsides]

A better soulution is tax cuts, a la Reagan and then the economy will recover very quickly as it did in the 80's. Screw Obama.(a la H. Simpson)

Tax's have been cut enough, interest rates have to be raised so people can start making money with money again.

 

[ironsides]

Subj: FW: History lesson - Argentina: Riches To Poverty

​

CAN'T WE LEARN FROM HISTORY?
Don’t Cry For Me, America



In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain’s maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world’s industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world’s second-most powerful economy.
It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.
In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipólito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of “fundamental change” with an appeal to the middle class.
Among Irigoyen’s changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country’s operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.
With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government’s payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers’ contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States’ Social Security and Medicare programs.
The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Perón. Perón had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation’s rich.
This targeted group “swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated.”
Under Perón, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.
High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Perón had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and “contempt for economic realities” lived on. Argentina’s federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.
Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by “industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy…”
The Argentinian government’s practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic. Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.
And by 1994, Argentina’s public pensions — the equivalent of Social Security — had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn’t enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.
A government-controlled “privatization” effort to rescue seniors’ pensions was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina’s defaulted government bonds.
By 2002, “…government fiscal irresponsibility… induced a national economic crisis as severe as America’s Great Depression.”

* * *​

In 1902 Argentina was one of the world’s richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought.
We’ve seen this movie before. The Democrats’ populist plans can’t possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches. History teaches us that ObamaCare and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.
Today’s Democrats are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be as cold and dead as Juan Perón when the piper must ultimately be paid.
References: A tear for Argentina’s pension funds; Inflation in Argentina; The United States of Argentina. Cross-posted at:Doug Ross @ Journal.
Checked on: http://www.snopes.com/
and: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/onlyinamerica.htm

​

 

[gopher]

A better soulution is tax cuts


Bush gave the corporate welfare recipients THREE tax cuts and it never worked.